What is it about?
The real-time BAEP was able to observe the waveform changes very quickly because the test results were obtained in 9.1 seconds. We observed that the latency of the wave V was delayed more than 1 ms. In this case, the hearing loss I found it irrelevant. And even extended to 3 ms. The reason for this is that the BAEP waveform is observed within 10 seconds, but the conventional method for 1 minute of inspection is damaged by the cochlear nerve and is reflected by a slight fine waveform change Will be. Therefore, the current BAEP warning criteria will apply to traditional BAEP test settings. However, these BAEP warning criteria can not predict hearing loss after surgery.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
When observing the change in latency with the real-time BAEP setting, it is observed that it continues to grow very slowly. So, even in the way of long-term inspection, the change of latency reflects very weakly. However, it is hard to reflect the amplitude that rapidly decreases within 10 seconds. Thus, in the real-time BAEP setting, the loss of the waveform is observed as a 50% amplitude reduction in the case of a long-time test.
Perspectives
The real-time BAEP setting is 400 times average, 43.9 Hz stimulation rate. You can observe the results in 9.1 seconds. It is a very useful way to accurately evaluate the function of cochlear nerve. In the warning criteria obtained with real-time BAEP, the latency delay of wave V did not have any hearing loss correlation, and no hearing loss occurred after surgery if the amplitude of wave V was loss. If you are able to test at 9.1 seconds as well as at a faster time, we recommend that you choose and apply it.
Sang Ku Park
Department of Neurosurgery, Konkuk University Medical Center, 120-1 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-ku, Seoul, Korea
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The critical warning sign of real-time brainstem auditory evoked potentials during microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm, Clinical Neurophysiology, January 2018, Elsevier,
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.12.032.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
